Stewart v. Motts Case Brief

The General Duty of Care: The Reasonable and Prudent Person Standard Stewart v. Motts Pennsylvania Court 1995 Pg. 93 Parties: Procedural History: The judge refused to instruct, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. AfÏrmed. Facts: Plaintiff Jonathan Stewart stopped at Defendant Martin Motts auto repair shop and offered assistance to the defendant in repairing an automobile fuel tank. The plaintiff suggested and then proceeded to pour gasoline into the carburetor. The exact sequence of events was contested, the tragic result was that the car backfired, caused an explosion, and resulted in Plaintiff suffering severe burns to his upper body. Issue: Whether there exists a higher standard of extraordinary care for the use of dangerous instrumentalities over and above the standard of reasonable care such that a trial court erred for failing to give an instruction to the jury that the appellee should have used a high degree of care in handling gasoline? Rule: The case required is always reasonable care. The standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act and proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised. Holding: Because we believe that there is but one standard of care, the standard of reasonable care. Reasoning: Our use of the language higher degree of care merely stated the commonsense conclusion that the use of a dangerous agency would require the reasonably prudent person to exercise more care. It is well established by our case law that the reasonable man must exercise care in proportion to the danger involved in the act. The charge read did adequately instruct the jury. Arguments: The plaintiff asked the judge to instruct the jury in part that gasoline due to its inflammability, is a very dangerous substance if not properly handled.